Juris Smotrovs juris.smotrovs@sets.lv writes:
@@ -1435,9 +1435,19 @@ "%s: in msg 0x%04x expecting lParam 0x%lx got 0x%lx\n", context, expected->message, expected->lParam, actual->lParam); }
ok_( file, line) ((expected->flags & defwinproc) == (actual->flags & defwinproc),"%s: the msg 0x%04x should %shave been sent by DefWindowProc\n",context, expected->message, (expected->flags & defwinproc) ? "" : "NOT ");
if ((expected->flags & defwinproc) != (actual->flags & defwinproc) && todo){todo_wine {failcount ++;ok_( file, line) (FALSE,"%s: in msg 0x%04x expecting lParam 0x%lx got 0x%lx\n",context, expected->message, expected->lParam, actual->lParam);}}elseok_( file, line) ((expected->flags & defwinproc) == (actual->flags & defwinproc),"%s: the msg 0x%04x should %shave been sent by DefWindowProc\n",context, expected->message, (expected->flags & defwinproc) ? "" : "NOT ");
The problem is that this will cause tests that currently succeed to be turned back into todos. It would be better to do the changes in a way that doesn't break existing tests.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
@@ -1435,9 +1435,19 @@ "%s: in msg 0x%04x expecting lParam 0x%lx got 0x%lx\n", context, expected->message, expected->lParam, actual->lParam); }
ok_( file, line) ((expected->flags & defwinproc) == (actual->flags & defwinproc),"%s: the msg 0x%04x should %shave been sent by DefWindowProc\n",context, expected->message, (expected->flags & defwinproc) ? "" : "NOT ");
if ((expected->flags & defwinproc) != (actual->flags & defwinproc) && todo){todo_wine {failcount ++;ok_( file, line) (FALSE,"%s: in msg 0x%04x expecting lParam 0x%lx got 0x%lx\n",context, expected->message, expected->lParam, actual->lParam);}}elseok_( file, line) ((expected->flags & defwinproc) == (actual->flags & defwinproc),"%s: the msg 0x%04x should %shave been sent by DefWindowProc\n",context, expected->message, (expected->flags & defwinproc) ? "" : "NOT ");The problem is that this will cause tests that currently succeed to be turned back into todos. It would be better to do the changes in a way that doesn't break existing tests.
Not exactly. If a test currently succeeds (todo == FALSE), then the else branch will execute, and the else branch is exactly as before the patch. So nothing will change for successful tests.
Anyway, if you are wary about changes affecting all tests, I will prepare another patch, simply disabling the particular (todo == TRUE) test causing the problem, with a FIXME comment.
This test is unsuccessful both before and after the patch, simply because of currently not checking for todo flag at defwinproc mismatch, it gets reported as test failing the whole msg suite.
The defwinproc mismatch itself appears because, after solving the WM_SIZE issue, this message -- correctly -- is sent, so the actual message queue shifts relative to the expected message queue, and -- due to some messages still missing -- three expected defwinproc messages coincide with three actual non-defwinproc messages which are expected later-on. Thus this failure is actually not about messages sent from incorrect place, but simply about missing messages which is a very typical failure among the todo tests.
Cheers, Juris Smotrovs
Juris Smotrovs juris.smotrovs@sets.lv writes:
The defwinproc mismatch itself appears because, after solving the WM_SIZE issue, this message -- correctly -- is sent, so the actual message queue shifts relative to the expected message queue, and -- due to some messages still missing -- three expected defwinproc messages coincide with three actual non-defwinproc messages which are expected later-on. Thus this failure is actually not about messages sent from incorrect place, but simply about missing messages which is a very typical failure among the todo tests.
Ah OK, I get it now. Thanks, I'll put it in.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Juris Smotrovs